Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8548125" data-attributes="member: 87792">The artificer explicitly casts spells.No it isn't. A spell is a specific subset of discrete effects. Barbarian rage is not a spell but is a discrete effect. Bardic inspiration is not a spell but is a discrete effect. Action Surge is a discrete effect but not a spell.And I'm pointing out we can't simply re-flavour spells. We need to actively re-write the ability to strip out the mechanically included spell parts.I would also say that unless something is a spell we should not reference that spell for an ability. We shouldn't be making it a cookie cutter ability that makes the game harder to play because it requires more cross referencing and at the same time makes the game blander by using off the peg spells rather than what actually works for the character ability.What you get if you insist on using the spell rules the way you want to is that everyone ends up feeling like a prosthetic-forehead alien from Star Trek.The problem with psionics is that there are two separate camps; those who think that psionics should be its own thing and distinctive, and those who think that it should work the same way it did in previous editions where psions were just spellcasters with a different collection of spells.As far as I can tell the only group unhappy with psionics as they are right now are a small subset of those who want classic psions back. Most people who want psionics to be different and interesting like the soulknife and psi warrior while most of those who want psions like the aberrant mind.</blockquote>

Verification